INFO:

CONTACT:

Site Resources:

Fun Stuff:

01/20/2010

Sometimes, we honestly have to wonder if maybe the more vocal members of our opposition have literally misplaced their hearts:

"The only conclusion I can reach is that the plaintiffs are attempting to make an emotional rather than a legal argument to invalidate Prop 8.

Emotion is about the only thing they’re focusing on, witness after witness.
Will emotion and 'hurt feelings' be enough for this judge to overturn the will of the people and be the first court in the nation to declare a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage? Time will tell. But the body blows that we’re striking in our outstanding cross examination will make a compelling case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where legal experts predict this case will finally land."

Their new line, which we're seeing repeated all over the social conserva-sphere, is that our side is using nothing but emotion to make our case. It's insulting for two reasons:

1) Because obviously, our case is based first and foremost in constitutional fairness and civil rights, not feelings.

2) They are the ones who deny that they've done any harm to us, yet they are now unfairly criticizing us for having genuine emotional stakes in all this.

Yes, we do have passions, sometimes intense ones, attached to our testimonies. That's because for those of us who are affected by this soul-crushing B.S., this is not some ridiculous "culture war" game that we are playing for shits, giggles, and promotion up the "pro-family" political totem pole. We are talking about OUR LIVES. OUR FAMILIES. OUR FLESH. OUR BLOOD. THE CORES OF OUR BEINGS! We can't go through the rote motions the way our opposition can, because we genuinely have something to win or lose here. They do not, which is why they feel such a license to throw stones not only at our rights, but also at our sentiment.

But then let's move on to Mr. Pugno's other line: "body blows"? "BODY BLOWS"?! He seriously criticizes us for using emotion, and then refers to his pro-discrimination work as being a "body blow"?! Don't get us wrong -- we absolutely agree with Mr. Pugno that his ignoble attempts to derail fairness strike a blow directly onto LGBT bodies. We just can't believe he is so self-unaware that he'd use this phrase immediately after shunning/denying the emotional recoil that his movement incites!

Look, human beings do not, by nature, want to be hurt. Most us aren't seeking tears. But the simple fact -- THE FACT! -- is that Andy Pugno, Maggie Gallagher, Jim Garlow, Miles McPherson, Brian Brown, Frank Schubert, and every last person who helped pass Prop 8 did cause real and demonstrable harm to countless psyches. If that fact comes to light amid our side's testimony, it is not born out of a tactical place. Our pain is due to the brute "body blow" that our opposition has cleverly yet ignobly positioned as "marriage protection"!

Your thoughts

I'm becoming addicted to your blog... GOOD WORK.

So when the anti-gay-marriage lawyer claims that Brokeback Mountain, Philadelphia, etc. prove that there is no longer anti-gay discrimination, that counts as a body blow? Spare me, Mr. Pugno.

Also, do you know, Jeremy, if anyone in the trial has referred to the letter Andrew Pugno co-signed with Ron Prentice and 2 others, threatening to expose businesses who donated to the No on 8 campaign? I think that in the context of "we're afraid to testify because the gays are so militant," their threatening letter sent to any company that donated over $10,000 to No on 8 is extremely relevant. Especially relevant because the letters were sent before the election and could have changed votes!

Ooh, thanks for the reminder, DN. I'll repost it!

Hey, would anyone else like to see the Plaintiffs call "Maggie Gallagher" to the stand?! :o) MUWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, and speaking of Brokeback Mountain, I have heard, recently, that the reason is lost the Oscar award is because several of the voters refused to even watch the film, let alone VOTE for it!

And, GOOD CALL, DN! I've not heard of that threatening letter before. It *WOULD* indeed be awesome of they would enter it into evidence at the trial!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 20, 2010 3:29:40 PM

I don't understand..."all emotion"? Um, we've had more scientific witnesses called to the stand who have done nothing but bolster our side with logic and science, where as their side has done nothing but make up false numbers in an attempt to confuse witnesses, and withdraw their OWN WITNESSES BECAUSE EVEN THEIR OWN WITNESSES SUPPORT OUR SIDE.

The "blows their striking in their outstanding cross examinations"? Has this guy even been following the case at all? He is DELUSSIONAL. When you withdraw depos from your own side's witnesses because their depos do nothing but support the plaintiff's side, you have a SERIOUS ISSUE with the validity of your case. Just a thought.